xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: XFS+Tux = patch trouble

To: "'mingo@xxxxxxx'" <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: XFS+Tux = patch trouble
From: "Gonyou, Austin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:02:09 -0600
Cc: Tux mailing list <tux-list@xxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sounds like Al Viro and Andrea Arcangelli. 

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:52 AM
> To: Keith Owens
> Cc: Tux mailing list; XFS Mailing list
> Subject: Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:20:08 +0100 (CET),
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >it would be nice if SGI folks pushed harder for XFS's 
> integration into the
> > >mainstream kernel.
> >
> > We have been trying hard since at least 2.4.5.  I split the big XFS
> > patch into digestible chunks, separating the core XFS code from the
> > add on stuff like kdb, lvm, dmapi, quota.  We have been sending mail
> > to Linus about the core XFS patches since June 5, 2001.  Response -
> > total silence.  Not even "I don't like it", we get no 
> response at all.
> 
> i dont think Linus is the first step needed. XFS is pretty 
> intrusive in
> the VFS area, so i guess you should first sort out the necessery VFS
> modifications with Al Viro? And then go step by step forward. 
> I mean, we
> are in a stable kernel branch and this is a pretty big patch even just
> counting the core changes.
> 
>       Ingo
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>